The reporter has raised a safety concern in relation to a revised Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) ruleset being proposed by a Part 121 Operator to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA).
The reporter advised, the CASA process for approving a significant change does not formally consider the safety objectives of the pilot group who will operate under the proposed ruleset, and raises the following concerns:
Pilot discretion - a key safety feature that has been removed from the revised ruleset
The reporter advised that prior to the ruleset revision, pilots could use their discretion if requested to extend a rostered duty to either accept or decline the request based on their self-assessed fitness and readiness to continue duty. Under the proposed ruleset revision, the airline may deliver the pilot an ultimatum to either accept the duty (now an assumption) or report not fit for duty and may be required to access sick leave. It is understood that a pilot, when delivered the ultimatum, will be under greater pressure to accept the duty being proposed by [Operator]. The proposed revision, which alters the fundamental application of operational limits from a pilot-discretionary model to a company-directed model, will have a detrimental outcome on aviation safety.
Net Safety Benefit
The reporter advised, Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 48.1 Appendix 7.1 defines a significant change to the FRMS as ‘any other change that does not maintain or improve, or is not likely to maintain or improve, aviation safety’ (Net Safety Benefit). [Operator] has not and cannot show the required Net Safety Benefit that will be derived from removing pilot discretion. The pilot being asked to operate the aircraft is best placed to make the decision in relation to their fitness and readiness to operate the aircraft. The reporter further advised that the net benefits to be obtained by the proposed revision are commercial in nature and are of benefit to [Operator], not the travelling public.
Deviation from best practice
The reporter is concerned the proposed revision to this FRMS consolidates and increases instances of deviation from best practice of a FRMS model that is already fundamentally divergent from the guidelines of CAO 48.1, Appendix 2.
The reporter is further concerned and queries why, despite the presence of a [Fatigue committee] (made up of various operational personnel including members of the pilot group), there was no consultation with the pilot group who are directly affected by the proposed revisions to the FRMS. The reporter stated, the change process should be a 'tri-partisan' approach involving the pilot group, the airline and the aviation regulator. The current approach does not constitute an effective nor best practise consultation process, resulting in a decreased level of aviation safety for crew members and that of the travelling public.
The reporter finally stated, 'This has the appearance of the FRMS being used as a productivity tool rather than a fatigue management tool and could further undermine pilots’ confidence in the system. Pilot confidence in the FRMS is critical to its success'.
Thank you for your letter of 10 October 2025 regarding REPCON number RA2025-00165 in relation to amendments to the [Operator] Fatigue Risk Management System (FRMS) ruleset which are currently under consideration by CASA.
[Operator] takes all safety related matters seriously and has carefully considered the items set out in the REPCON. [Operator] also affirms its strong commitment to maintaining a leading FRMS in all respects, including through the continuous improvement of the system in line with data, science and ongoing hazard and risk identification processes and feedback.
Our response to the matters raised in the REPCON is set out below.
Pilot discretion
The REPCON raises proposed wording changes in relation to pilot discretion. The changed wording is intended to better align to the provisions of sections 14 and 16 of Civil Aviation Order 48.1 (CAO 48.1) and – contrary to the assertion of the reporter – both preserves and positively requires the exercise of the pilot’s discretion following a self-assessment of mental and physical fitness to operate.
If the result of that assessment is that the pilot exercises their discretion to not extend a rostered duty, the requirement is simply to notify the company scheduling team of that decision. The use of sick leave is not required under these circumstances, and the data used from the notification process is fed back into the FRMS data gathering processes to enable system improvement.
By contrast, the previous formulation was vague and did not differentiate between the exercise of a discretion for fatigue safety related reasons (in line with CAO 48.1) on the one hand, and other non-safety related reasons (for example, conflict with non-work leisure activities), on the other. This meant that the data could not reliably be used for fatigue safety data gathering and monitoring under the FRMS.
Because the change more closely aligns the discretionary criteria to those under CAO 48.1 – and does not involve a change to the safety outcomes under the FRMS or the underlying CAO, [Operator] does not consider that the concerns raised by the reporter in relation to ‘net safety benefit’ have been made out.
Consultation with pilot group
The REPCON also raises the matter of consultation with the pilot body.
Regular and meaningful consultation, communication and engagement with the pilot body (including their industrial representatives) is a core tenet of the [Operator] FRMS. One of the primary means of such consultation is through the monthly [Fatigue committee] meetings, which are constituted by line pilot, pilot association and company representatives.
[Fatigue committee] representatives – including line pilot and pilot association members, are provided with access to monthly [Fatigue committee] data, safety performance indicators, risk profiles, individual fatigue reports and FRMS change proposal documentation, providing them with a formal venue in which to ask questions, identify issues and concerns, and make recommendations.
The proposed alignment of the pilot discretion element with CAO 48.1 was formally circulated to [Fatigue committee] members for review and comment on [date], with the broader ruleset revision having been open for discussion since at least [five months earlier]. These clauses were adjusted based on feedback received.
The history of [Operator]’s [Fatigue committee] process clearly shows a constructive and productive process for consultation and engagement that has delivered, and continues to deliver, meaningful FRMS process and ruleset improvements over many years, and is at odds with the reporter’s assertion that ‘there is no consultation with the pilot group who are directly affected by the proposed revisions to the FRMS’.
In addition, CASA retains a standing invitation to attend all [Fatigue committee] meetings in addition to its routine surveillance activities, providing an additional layer of transparency.
Conclusion
[Operator] remains committed to working with the [Fatigue committee] and the broader pilot body – as well as with CASA – to continuously improve and develop the management of flight crew fatigue risk, and once again we thank the ATSB for forwarding the reporter’s concerns.
CASA is satisfied that the [Operator] change management process for this wording change has operated appropriately.
The information provided to CASA as part of the significant change safety case is satisfactory.
Of note – regardless of the wording in the FRMS manual, the authority of the pilot in command under CASR 91.215 is not impinged.